| Legal ForumsRegisterSign inBankruptcyBusinessCriminalEmploymentFamilyImmigrationReal EstateMore... | ChatUpcomingArchiveHelpAsk a LawyerMost Recent Q&AAsk a QuestionAsk a Lawyer Archive |

In the first place, large firms regularly censure what the news media reports, both by direct and by implicit intimidation. The fact of life is that the economic life of modern developed countries is dominated by large firms. These large firms, especially those selling to the general public, spend significant funds advertising, most notably advertising in national and regional media organs. The advertising revenues these media derive from such large firms comprises a significant part of their income.
Therefore, a particular publishing or broadcasting company is quite sensitive to the wishes and concerns of its large firm advertisement accounts. This sensitivity is so acute that these publishers and broadcasters tend not to present news stories offensive to large-firm advertisers. This is not mere plausible conjecture: evidence confirms such censorship regularly occurs. Statistical studies confirm that publishers and broadcasters seldom run news stories which present their large firm advertisers in a critical light. For example, much evidence establishes that publications carrying tobacco advertisements publish few articles on the health effects of smoking.12 In addition, anecdotal evidence exists of specific instances of news stories being pulled at a large advertiser’s request. Finally, anecdotal evidence tells of journalists never writing, pursuing or investigating stories out of consideration for the large advertiser.
Article provided by Michael Trevelline who works with business firms in washington dc. You can visit his site to read more about business transactions in washington dc.
